Why no tail wheel option?

The vans website says no tailwheel option, this is thin will be a mistake. The RV12 will go head to head with the Sonex which is available in nosewheel and Tailwheel.

Whadaya guys think?

I agree but...

Van's once told me that developing the -9 was a waste of time, money and engineering resources since all but a handful of this series have been -9A's.

That logic must be driving them to only produce nose wheel versions of the -10 & -12.

Bummer!

I think we have addressed this before, with regards to the tailwheel option for the 10. My opinion only, is that there is no practical reason for a tail wheel RV-10. It is emotional only. The insurance would be higher, it would be uncomfortable on the ground for loading, and most likely for the rear passengers while taxiing. The visibility and comfrot factor of the 10 is absolutely wonderful right now for everyone in the plane, both on the ground and in the air. It certainly doesn't appear to suffer any speed loss due to the third wheel (or the lack of retracts, too). I know I keep saying it on this list, and I assure you that I get nothing from Van to say this, but the 10 is one heck of an airplane. I have found absolutely NO adverse characteristics in over 110 hours of flying, at everything from minimum fuel to gross weights, 4 adults, long days, mountain flying, actual instrument departures and actual instrument approaches, and night take off and landings. The takeoff and landing characteristics of the 10 will make all of us look better than we are, much to the delight of the passengers.
Just my 2 cents.

Vic

It IS an emotional decision.

...but it is MY EMOTIONS!!!



I agree with the -10 not being designed as a TD, as much as I don't like it. It makes sense. As far as the -9, I suppose that builder COULD be swayed into building a -7. Bill, would you agree?

As far as the -12, I was dismayed. Bummer, Jack!

Maybe they will retrofit it? I KNOW someone will, even if Van's doesn't!

CJ

Captain_John said:

I agree with the -10 not being designed as a TD, as much as I don't like it. It makes sense. As far as the -9, I suppose that builder COULD be swayed into building a -7. Bill, would you agree?

As far as the -12, I was dismayed. Bummer, Jack!

Maybe they will retrofit it? I KNOW someone will, even if Van's doesn't!

CJ

Click to expand...

CJ,

You are right on the mark, the -7 is a great airplane. One of the main reasons I went with the -9 rather than the -7 was the option to put in a smaller engine. I like the idea of moving along at great speeds on minimum power and fuel burn. However, if they only made a -9A I would be building a -7 and looking for an O-320.

As for a TW -10, yep, like you I think it is only a matter of time until someone builds one. Not that the NW -10 is bad or anything, I just like the looks of TW airplanes. But as Vic points out, loading the back seaters on a TW -10 would be an issue.

Van's, however, will never sell one because the market just isn't there and I can't blame them for that decision.

I am with you on that, when I build a 9 it will be a 9 and not a 9a. Emotion counts when it costs you a bundle. I am glad they came out with the 9 even if it was an engineering waste of time.